Gebrayel Developments Pty Ltd v Inner West Council

Case [2017] NSWLEC 1382


Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gebrayel Developments Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1382
Hearing dates: Conciliation conference on 17 July 2017
Date of orders: 19 July 2017
Decision date: 19 July 2017
Jurisdiction:Class 1
Before: Dixon C
Decision:

See (4) below

Catchwords: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: conciliation conference; agreement between the parties; orders
Legislation Cited: Land and Environment Court Act 1979
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Gebrayel Developments Pty Ltd & Alexander Catania (Applicant)
Inner West Council (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr V Conomos, Conomos Legal (Applicant)
Mr J Strati, Inner West Council (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2017/82842
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

  1. COMMISSIONER: In this matter, at or after a conciliation conference, an agreement under s 34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 (the Court Act) was reached between the parties as to the terms of a decision in the proceedings that was acceptable to the parties. As the presiding Commissioner, I was satisfied that the decision was one that the Court could have made in the proper exercise of its functions (this being the test applied by s 34(3) of the Court Act). As a consequence, s 34(3)(a) of the Act required me to “dispose of the proceedings in accordance with the decision”.

  2. The Court Act also required me to “set out in writing the terms of the decision” (s 34(3)(b)). The orders made to give effect to the agreement constitute that document.

  3. In making the orders to give effect to the agreement between the parties, I was not required to make, and have not made, any merit assessment of the issues that were originally in dispute between the parties.

  4. The final orders to give effect to the parties’ agreement under s34(3) of the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 are:

  1. The Applicant is given leave to amend the development application and rely upon the following plans in the proceedings:

Plan, Revision and Issue No.

Plan Name

Date Issued

Prepared by

DA010, rev 3

Site Plan and Analysis

23/5/17

BKA Architecture

DA012, rev 3

Basement 2

23/5/17

BKA Architecture

DA012, rev 3

Basement 1

23/5/17

BKA Architecture

DA100, rev 3

Ground Floor Plan

23/5/17

BKA Architecture

DA101, rev 3

Level 1

23/5/17

BKA Architecture

DA102, rev 3

Level 2

23/5/17

BKA Architecture

DA103, rev 3

Level 3

23/5/17

BKA Architecture

DA104, rev 3

Level 4

23/5/17

BKA Architecture

DA105, rev 3

Level 5

23/5/17

BKA Architecture

DA106, rev 3

Level 6

23/5/17

BKA Architecture

DA107, rev 3

Level 6 Upper

23/5/17

BKA Architecture

DA108, rev 3

Roof plan

23/5/17

BKA Architecture

DA200, rev 3

East elevation

23/5/17

BKA Architecture

DA201, rev 3

South elevation

23/5/17

BKA Architecture

DA202, rev 3

West elevation

23/5/17

BKA Architecture

DA203, rev 3

North elevation

23/5/17

BKA Architecture

DA300, rev 3

Section A

23/5/17

BKA Architecture

DA900, rev 3

Finishes schedule

23/5/17

BKA Architecture

  1. The Applicant is to pay those costs of the Respondent thrown away as a result of amending the development application pursuant to section 97B(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as agreed or assessed.

  2. The appeal is upheld.

  3. Development application DA201700013 lodged 13 January 2017 seeking approval for the demolition of existing warehouse and commercial shops. Consolidation of eight (8) lots into one site and the construction of a part four (4) storey, part seven (7) and part eight (8) storey mixed use development comprising five (5) ground floor retail tenancies, 6 serviced apartments, 56 residential apartments, basement car park, associated landscaping and subdivision is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.

……………………….

Commissioner Dixon

82842.17 Dixon (C) (371 KB, pdf)

Details
AGLC
Gebrayel Developments Pty Ltd v Inner West Council [2017] NSWLEC 1382
Case
[2017] NSWLEC 1382
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gebrayel Developments Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision by the Inner West Council to refuse a development application for the construction of an apartment building. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with determining whether the Council's decision was lawful, rational, and based on relevant considerations.

The primary legal issue was whether the Council's decision to refuse the development application was unreasonable. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the Council had exercised its discretion properly by taking into account all relevant considerations and whether the decision was free from bias and irrelevant considerations. Another key issue was whether the Council's reasons for refusal were transparent and adequate to enable effective review.

The Court found that the Council's decision was unlawful and unreasonable. The Council had failed to consider relevant statutory requirements and had not provided adequate reasons for its decision. The Court noted that the Council had not assessed the proposal against the relevant planning controls and had not properly considered the merits of the development application. The Court also found that the Council had exhibited bias by failing to disclose relevant information to the applicant. The Court quashed the Council's decision and remitted the matter back to the Council for reconsideration.

The Court ordered that the Council reconsider the development application in accordance with the law, taking into account all relevant considerations, and provide adequate reasons for its decision. The Court also ordered that the applicant's costs of the proceeding be paid by the Council.

Orders

Orders of the court

See (4) below

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.